Toyotas, Toyotas, Toyotas! I don’t know about you, but when I heard about Toyota Week, my first thought was “see you next week!” But then I remembered that there were some pretty interesting, cool Toyotas before they decided Vanilla competency was the only way to go. However, some of you may not care to hear or read anything about Toyotas here on CC, so just for you, may I present this cool old Skylark?

As has been oft-repeated, the A-body GM midsizers were all new for 1968, with swoopy, near-fastback styling in all Chevy, Pontiac, Oldsmobile and Buick flavors. We’ve all seen umpteen fake SS454s, fake GTOs, and fake 442s–and maybe even a real one or two!–but I am here to tell you that, yes, Buick did produce a version. And no, it is not “some weird kind of Chevelle.” However, it seems that Flint’s version of the good ol’ A was kind of lost in the shuffle.

Part of it may have been due to somewhat less cohesive styling. The trademark Buick sweepspear was polarizing to some, as was the semi-enclosed rear wheels–almost like a partial fender skirt. But I love them, and indeed, they might be my favorite version (well, except maybe for a Vista Cruiser).

While the GS400 led the performance charge over at Buick, the Skylark Custom was the luxury version–far removed from the brown-wrapper Special wagon Paul shared with us recently. Customs came in your choice of two- or four-door hardtop, four-door sedan, or convertible.

I have spotted a ’68 convertible, but not in the wild. This one was at the recent Maple City Cruise Night in Monmouth, IL–a must-see show for me. Basically, the whole town shuts down and the streets are filled with anywhere from 1,000 to 1,200 classic cars. You never know what you will find.

This bottle-green convertible was especially lovely with its Road Wheels and clean interior. I really like that ’60s Moderne steering wheel–it has been previously mentioned that this wheel would not look out of place on, say, a 1993 Century, and I agree. Love the Sonomatic radio, too!

Whoever ordered this Custom convertible didn’t skimp on the extras, as it sports bucket seats, floor-shifter automatic, and center console–not to mention the Road Wheels and whitewall tires. No power windows, though.

Here’s the back. The ’68 convertible was pretty rare, with only 8,188 of the $3098 drop-tops finding buyers. This one also has the optional fender skirts and chrome trim on the sweepspear, which gave it an even more deluxe factory lowrider look. And I also dig the side marker light disguised as a Tri-Shield ornament.

Skylark Custom. Doesn’t that name sound good? I can understand Buick naming their current middle offering as the Regal, but I think Skylark is a better name. “Regal” conjures up velour-tufted Broughamism to me–GN and T-Type G-bodies notwithstanding.

The coupe was the most popular Custom, with 35,639 assembled. Two-doors like this one started at $3009, with the expected power options pushing that figure up several hundred bucks, depending on how “spendy” you were feeling. In a classic case of GM cheapness, however, even the plush Skylark Custom came standard with a three-speed manual. Really?

Suffice it to say darn few went out the door that way. This one was probably originally equipped with a column-shift automatic, but these days it was sporting what appeared to be an aftermarket floor-shift automatic, somewhat at odds with the plush vinyl bench seat with fold-down armrest.

It’s a local car too, being sold by Harrelson Motors in Moline. I had never heard of that dealer before, but I imagine it later became Perry Snower Buick, and which is today Key Buick. The 1968-69 Special/Skylark are fairly rare these days (the ’70-’72s are much more frequently seen, at shows anyway), so this one was a treat. Despite the wear and tear over the years, it still looks pretty good! However, I would have to add the beautiful Buick road wheels and some redline tires…

82 Comments

Actually, IMHO this is one of the few cases where a design looks better as a 4 door hardtop. I think the extra length takes the stubbyness out of it.
I could never warm up to these. LeMans for me please, second choice Cutlass S.

+1 on the Le Mans & Cutlass,I agree the design works better as a 4 door or better still a wagon.Buicks were often overlooked as being a car for the blue rinse brigade and not enough “enthusiasts” know they made their share of tyre burners.

Actually the 1968-72 intermediates came in three wheelbases: 112″ for the two-door coupes, hardtops, and convertibles; 116″ for the four-door sedans, hardtops, and regular wagons; and 121″ for the Vista Cruiser and its Buick equivalent.

I’m pretty certain that’s the GM shifter in it – I know the ’69 Camaro used the stirrup shifter, and did a number of other models in the late ’60’s. The color of the console appears to be a little off. Was that the camera, or did it actually mismatch like that in the car?

I liked these quite a bit – in 4 door hardtop form. My Aunt Eula drove one in gold with a black vinyl roof. However, as a 2 door, these left something to be desired, especially with the vinyl top treatment on the C pillar.

It seemed to me that the alignment of the rear bumpers of these with the trunk lid and rear quarters was difficult to get right. One little bump and the things always seemed to be out of alignment with something. Also, that single backup light in the middle of the bumper always seemed to me one of the least useful ever, as I cannot imagine it putting a lot of light where you need it.

We agree. Looking at the rear of this Buick, there were so many odd curves to all of those pieces, it is a wonder that any of the finished cars ever came out looking right. Of course, who would know better than you, who has actually had to put cars together for a living.

You can’t see squat out the back of these cars anyway. Even my ’77 Chevelle (next bodystyle after this) can be tough to gauge where the rear of the car is, and at night the backup lights aren’t too helpful.

When my Dad retired in 1977 and gave up his company car, the 77 Royal Monaco 3seat Brougham wagon. He Bought a 69 Skylark custom ,” Just Till He got settled” at the end of a dirt road… WHY WOULD you not Want A NEW $4-6000 car then. You are Building a NEW $200,ooo house! as a 17 year old I could not understand it. now i realize he was not thinking finances well, he just wanted his dream house with indoor pool, low taxes, way from neighbors. home must have;
“no welcoming bedrooms for grown kids to linger”: ie unheated basement where I at 18 had square footage, not a room, cinder divider blocks. weird.
YET HE Bought this 8 or 9 year old lt gold /champaign greenish maybe, black vinyl top Skylark…and VROOM… Hoover Vacuum Tail is all I could think of. For me it would Not start at first, then later it would. But The uncertainty every time was unnerving at times.
he replaced it with a 4 speed pinto pony. brand new , but it is what i’d have to learn manual on if i wanted to drive. dad had his ways with the cars he’d provide. i learned by myself, without him in shotgun. this was after numerous attempts over a period of a year behind the pinto as well as a bug or two , and a datsun.

“now i realize he was not thinking finances well”
I don’t know about that-what’s a better use of your money, a depreciating auto or a home. What would that seemingly astronomically priced house be worth today?

It is always great to see a Skylark! My grandmother was a very loyal Buick driver, and she found her “sweet spot” with the mid-sized offerings in the 1960s. She drove a number of Skylarks (’64, ’67 and ’70) before going along with the name change to Century in 1973. While she never had one of the “sweepspear” models, one of her neighbors did–and kept it for a long time. It was a 1968 Skylark Custom 4-door hardtop in dark blue, with no vinyl top! Very sharp looking car, and apparently quite reliable as the family held onto it all the way into the early 1980s.

I am fascinated by the styling of all the GM A bodies from ’68 and ’69, and it was interesting in particular to see Buick “stretch” so far from a design perspective. It was fairly edgy (pun intended) and a polarizing design from a conservative brand. To my eyes, though intriguing, I’m not sure that the “sweepspear” effectively made the translation to the mid-size cars, as it made them look too heavy in the rear. Perhaps more open rear-wheel cutouts would have helped. I thought the mid-cycle restyle on all the A bodies for 1970 gave them more refined and mature looks, even if some of the drama of the earlier cars was lost. Given that I am biased due to my grandmother’s 1970 Skylark, I do consider it to be the best of that entire generation of mid-sized Buicks.

As mentioned, all of these cars seemed to have rear bumper alignment problems even when I’d see them in the early ’70s as a youngster. The 1970 refresh made a simpler rear end and cleaned up the problem. If I’d have been in charge of Buick mid size in 1969, I’d have made the skirts and sweep spear standard on the Skylark Custom. But, it would probably be wrong. Skirted mid size cars such as the Skylark, LeMans and a handful of mid ’70’s Torinos never seemed to catch on. But, they did stand out. A ’68 skirted Skylark would have looked quite appropriate in a driveway next to a skirted ’68 Wildcat full size. Make my Skylark a convertible and the Wildcat a 4 door hardtop please.

The ’68 – ’72 A-body sedans always look claustrophobic to me with their high beltlines and small rear door windows. The 4 door hardtops were much nicer looking, my grade school principal had one, probably a ’71 or ’72. But, but they seemed quite rare even when new, especially the Chevy versions. The base Buick Special sedan with few options, no chrome on the door frames and simple interior always looked like a penalty box your Aunt Mildred would drive.

Buick, it seems, took the whole “junior big car” styling theme more to heart than any of the other divisions A’s. As you pointed out, these don’t look out of place next to a Wildcat or even an Electra 225.

Wayne Kady, GM stylist, along with others I’m sure, was pushing this swept down, covered rear wheel look on styling studies since the early 60’s, this was seen in the aforementioned Wildcat, the 68 Grand Prix, these Skylarks and others.

“Buick, it seems, took the whole “junior big car” styling theme more to heart than any of the other divisions A’s.”

With, unfortunately, less than stellar results. Of all the great sixties’ GM intermediates, the Skylarks seemed to suffer the most in the styling department. The exception were the pre-1965 compact-size Buicks. Those came out looking okay.

But from ’65-’69, I’d take any of the other GM 2-door intermediate hardtops (particularly the Pontiacs) before a Buick.

Not I. Until the 68 I’d prefer the BUICK Skylark . Even in 67 I thought it was just right. Then They cheapened and at the same time Made it bigger in 68 Model year. I still liked it better than the Oldsmobile styling. I liked Pontiac’s best, then Buick. Well aside From Mercury Cougars 67=-7-0

Default for me was always a two door post. Had a 69 Buick like that with auto and 350. Nothing wrong with it but liked my 69 Dodge better.

I thought it was going to be a long lasting vehicle but life being what it is I never found out. Transfer meant sell it. Good way to buy a used car was from a transferring serviceman. Bad way to sell one.

Mom still has a ’72 Skylark two door hardtop, but doesnt drive anymore. Grandma bought it new in El Paso, trading in the ’63. I drove it to California when she got her Cadillac and gave the Buick to mom.

The car had a weird half vinyl roof that didnt last in the desert sun. The car also has bucket seats, but a column shifter, very common at the time. Wire wheel covers complete the package. I like this later style much better than the ’68-’69.

growing up I had a 65 Cutlass 2 door post car (330 4bbl jetaway). My friend had a 64 El Camino (6 cylinder 3 on the tree we artfully converted to a floor 4spd) and then later a 68 Chevelle hardtop 327 powerglide if I remember correctly. The build quality on the elky and my Cutlass was better than the Chevelle. Driving the Chevelle was very claustrophobic compared my cutlass. The rear window had too narrow a view. Its actually very similar to modern cars like the Camaro in that aspect.

I am not nearly as big a fan of the 68-72 A bodies as I am the 64-67’s.
This is prolly gonna make my Buick pals a lil upset but the Skylarks were the least attractive of these cars. The Chevelle and the Cutlass wore it much much better. Especially in the performance models.

I agree with you in preferring the 64-67 GM A body cars to the 68-72. I am not sure most people today agree with us. I had near the same experience. My mom drove a 64 Cutlass hardtop. My stepmom got a 68 Cutlass hardtop. I was still a kid, and the high dash and beltline of the 68 made it hard for me to see out of the thing from the front passenger seat. I liked the squarer styling of the older ones too.

I agree also. The 64-67 had beautiful chrome pieces in the interior and dashboard, more metal in the dashboard and generally more quality upholstered surfaces rather than plastic. Plus the great all across the back tail lights. Not that I would turn down a free 68-72 however.

Padded dashes were mandated saftey equipment added to later cars. Was not “cheapening”, as some say.

Snuckster

Posted August 22, 2013 at 9:40 AM

my 65 cutlass had chromed metal switches and knobs as well as a chromed metal mesh in the dash. My friends 68 Chevelle and my current DD 68 Electra has chromed plastic switches n knobs. Look at almost any gm car from the 60’s and the cheapening is obvious and I’m not talking about padded dashes.

He wasnt telling porky pies then I looked at buying a Buick Skylark it was floorshift manual ,in a Buick seemed hard to credit but the guy said the box was factory it was the gas bill that put me off it though not the manual transmission.

Spent part of a summer cruising with a friend in his Mom’s yellow, black interior, black top GS400 convertible picking up bikinied friends. The only thing I remember about the GS400 specifically was when at idle, the whole car torqued. Oh, and yes I do remember the back seat. I could have cared less about driving it.

A 68 Skylark Custom 2dr hardtop was my second car so yes this is a very welcome break from Toyota week. It did have power windows but the bench seat and no AC. It definitely planted the seed of my preference for Buicks out of all the GM cars and led to several more.

I think wagons are cool too, especially the old full-sized wagons from the big three. I never really warmed up to the pre ’73 GM A-wagons though. I can’t explain why that is (perhaps they look too long and narrow maybe?).

I think these were the longest roaming of the 68-72 A bodies. I still occasionally see the occasional unrestored daily driver roaming around, even coupes!

Personally, these were never my favorite, the 68 and 69 anyway, The 70-72s look more cohesive. With the 68/69s though, between the seemingly mandatory vinyl tops, partially skirted rear wheels, and busy appearance, it’s a wonder these weren’t made 5 years later. In fact, of all the A bodies, this was the only one that doesn’t make the transition to Collonade seem all that radical.

I’ll also echo the talk about the bumper alignment. If there was any car one could blame the 5mph impact bumper legislation on, it would be these. I have never seen one where the either bumper looks properly aligned or unbent, even period TV shows with these in the background look out of kilter. The design itself lends to that look too, if you look at the front end from a low angle it looks like it was in a minor front end collision.

Here is my friend’s 69 Buick Special Deluxe. It was the most basic model that year. The car was optioned with only power steering, power brakes, automatic transmission, and AM radio. It is probably the cleanest most original most basic 69 Buick A body sedan in existence.

This post and Brendan’s on the Highlander show two of the largest dealer emblems I’ve ever seen which has me wondering… were there laws in some states that required these?

I mean other than a state law I cannot imagine why they would be used. We never had them in Calif., a license plate frame served that purpose out here. As an identifier for service I don’t get it either, they could have used a window sticker like Casa de Cadillac.

Sure with the advent of adhesive tape they were pretty easy to install or remove. But when this Skylark was new they were clipped on thorough dealer drilled holes creating a not just an eye sore but also a future rust spot.

There used to be a Buick dealer in the Charlotte area, Folger Buick, and for years and years, they drilled two mounting holes for the “Folger” dealer nameplate. Eventually, I think they went to a stick on emblem, but the never changed through the years, archaic (in my opinion) nameplate graced many a car. I always wondered why anyone would want to drill holes in a car for something like this when an alternative method was available.

I was trying to remember what movie one of these was featured in, in my mind the car was yellow though, great car casting for a secretarial ride, I could imagine a single secretary nursing her decade old Skylark along through 2 gas crises.

One of my favorite cars! Daddy had one identical to the one used in “9 to 5” except ours was a ’68 Custom with every factory option except, I believe, power door locks. I’m talking power windows, bench seat, tilt, a/c, cruise, am/fm, and 8 track mounted below the dash over towards the right side a little bit. It received a little mini-restore in ’79 with a new vinyl top and emblems and a recovering of the bottom of the front seat with a material closely matching the original. Daddy then passed it along to me as he purchased a new Regal limited. Everywhere I went someone wanted to buy it – and when they saw all the options it had, they really wanted it!

Somewhere along the way, the rear bumper of this one got tapped too. It had that little crease on the right side but other than that, the chrome was perfect and we couldn’t find a junked bumper that was any nicer.

The Skylark stayed in the family until 1983. It started rusting severely under the vinyl top that was replaced in 1979. We deduced that the shop, when removing the original top, scraped the glue and all off and scratched the metal. They didn’t primer the metal and just glued the new top down. Within a couple of years, there were some huge rust bubbles popping up under the top and I decided it was time for it to go. This was too bad because my dad had rust out below the rear window fixed when the top was replaced and went to the trouble of having the Buick dealer order up some new Skylark emblems mounted behind the rear side windows. I sold it for the sum of $600.00 to someone who didn’t seem to mind the rust because outside of that, the car was still in pretty good shape. The 350 was getting tired but the Super Turbine transmission shifted like a new one. To top it off, that car still had ice cold air conditioning; in fact, I think it had the best system of any car I have ever driven. As I recall, everything but the cruise control worked and I used the money from the sale as a down payment on a 1984 Dodge Daytona.

The last time I saw the Skylark was about a year later and it was sitting in the backyard of a single wide in a trailer park within my town. Then, one day, it was suddenly gone. I take it that the car was shot. I didn’t dog the aging 350 and I guess the new owner did. A sad ending to what was once, a beautiful and classy car.

Nice post; I didn’t especially care for the “s” curve on the Skylark-in my opinion it was too representative of those overchromed and gaudy Buicks of a decade earlier(I’m thinking the ’58 model). I thought the 2nd generation GM intermediates two door models were the best looking; the proportions of the four door models never quite looked right, the greenhouse looked too small-that’s probably because of the fastback styling.

Going back to the four door models, I always felt the 1st generation were better looking vehicles, I felt the proportions of them were more attractive and balanced.

I get so annoyed when younger car ‘know it alls’ assume Buick was always “old peoples car” and go on and on about how “GM should have dropped them”. With no regard for its over 100 year history.

Jalopnik dissmissed the 1970 Buick GSX once, by saying ‘with its low sale numbers, nobody wanted a Buick Muscle car” Not even checking that it was limited edtion! Had no clue that GS package was offered for many years, and sold as well as 442.

Also, an earlier comment was dissmissive saying “I’m surprised GM didnt go under sooner with all the different body panels. etc”. GM got to 50% by differentiating their cars. And only when quality slipped, did they lose sales and couldnt maintain the overhead.

Our neighbors when I was a kid bought a Skylark 2 door, no vinyl top (rare on a Buick Skylark), pale blue, with bucket seats. Don’t remember what year it was. My sister turned 16 in 1966 and for about a year, she drove my mom’s 1966? Dynamic 88, or my dad’s car, a ’67 Toronado. My dad’s buddy was a Buick/Olds/Caddy dealer so my sister had the choice of a ’68 Skylark or a Cutlass as her first car. She very quickly pronounced the Skylark, “ugly as hell” and she got a Cutlass, ordered pretty well stripped with only A/C and power seats (my sister is pretty short and a CLOSE driver). The car was almost trouble free, except the driver’s seat would jam in the forward position whenever my mom would want to drive it, and it would take a trip to the dealer to resolve it. It did rust amazingly quickly, and by 1970, it had holes in both doors and the area in front of the doors was starting to rust too. So my dad took us to the dealer one day and just told my sister to order a new ’71 Cutlass with whatever she wanted on it. Sadly my 442 suggestions got nowhere. I knew I would be driving in a year or so, so I wanted “my car” to be a big block car. I was pretty sure I would end up with this car, and I did, for about 15 days until it was totalled after being hit by a VW Beetle going way faster than it should have been. To replace it, I got mom’s ’72 Cutlass Supreme. It was a nice looking car, but had electrical issues from day one.

I had to have one….from the time they were brand new, until I finally got one from my husband for Christmas, 1973. I was 23 then. To me, it was the most beautiful car I had ever seen. I loved the styling and it was fast enough to surprise a few folks at stoplights.
I’ve had a few dandy’s since then…(All GM, because I don’t like “foreign”)…but nothing has given me the “Top of the World” feeling like this one did.

I’m glad I’m not the only one who prefers the 1970-72 style over the 1968-69 with the 1970 being my favorite due to it being the last year of the high compression engines, I thought the 1970-72 Buick immediate’s were more aggressive looking, I can see why the 1970-72’s were far more common to see wherever you go.